Works for me!

You might also want to notice which way the possession arrow is pointing when you invoke your strategy because a wily coach on the opposing bench could instruct his free-thrower to shoot an airball after your team violates, which would cause a double-violation and result in a jump ball. Your strategy may backfire and simply give them the ball!

Excellent point, Nevada. My partner and I were discussing this situation at length yesterday. We decided that if this ever happened, we warn BOTH coaches that they will be getting a technical if their teams continued on in the "actionless contest". We believe this takes care of the situation in this manner:

a.) if A1 shoots an airball AND team B violates, we go AP;
b.) if A1 misses on purpose (and we as officials can tell by the way the ball is shot) AND team B rebounds, game over;
c.) if A1 misses on purpose (and we as officials can tell by the way the ball is shot) AND team A rebounds, technical on Team A;
d.) if A1 misses (but it appears A1 really tried to make the shot) AND team B does not violate and either team B or team A rebounds, play on;
e.) if A1 makes it, -----------> RELIEF!!

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "miss", but as long as the ball hits the ring (or enters the basket), A has done nothing wrong. You should play on in both these situations.

By miss, I mean we'll have to make a judgment on the intent. If it looks legitimate, go with it. If it doesn't look legitimate, it probably isn't.

All this being said, I've been put in this position since the game is headed toward the "actionless contest" state. I'm not talking about a game that hasn't reached this state!

Look, I don't mean to be piling on here but how do you "judge" the "intent" of a miss?

By rule all A1 has to do is put the ball through the hole or hit the ring on the FT. Regardless of the "state" of the game or the "intent" of the FT'er.

If the throw hits the rim, A has met the requirements and isn't continuing an "actionless contest."

See, for example, 5.9.3

I pointed out that I was continuing on with the original post...that the game was in (or entering) an "actionless" state by measures taken by the players who have been directed by the two coaches. Please assume I have already warned coach A and coach B since A1 was continually heaving the ball off the rim and team B was continually and purposely committing a lane violation...thereby, sending the game into an actionless state.

If A1 heaves the ball off the rim by the direction of team A coach, he/she is choosing to continue to promote an actionless contest. Now, I did say the player can miss...he/she just can't throw it one-handed at 50 MPH off the rim by direct instruction from his/her coach...and did I mention that I'm standing right there as said coach tells the player this? I think that can be assumed too.

AGAIN, assume I have already warned both coaches about their (and their team's) antics!

I pointed out that I was continuing on with the original post...that the game was in (or entering) an "actionless" state by measures taken by the players who have been directed by the two coaches. Please assume I have already warned coach A and coach B since A1 was continually heaving the ball off the rim and team B was continually and purposely committing a lane violation...thereby, sending the game into an actionless state. [/B][/QUOTE]The major difference is that team B was committing repeated violations; team A is <b>not</b> committing a violation of any type. Missing a foul shot is <b>not</b> a violation. I really don't think that you can warn team A for anything in this particular case. They haven't violated any section of the rules, whereas team B is repeatedly doing so.

Indy, please quote the rule that says that A1 can't throw it off the rim. There's nothing in the ulebook that says that he can't.

JR,

You call it your way, I'll call it mine. (And I'm sure that'll draw some kind of "making up your own rules" comment.) If you call it your way, just be sure to bring a chair and your snap-on-toiletry-belt so you can shave several times over the course of the several weeks. That way you can keep looking good since you'll be in that gym officiating that game for a long time...even if you will be helping BOTH coaches make a mockery of the game!

Oh, and bring a TV and TV stand with an outside link so your wife can sattelite in and keep you up to date on the happenings of your family. If we're going to split hairs here, see the rules as only black & white and not use our common sense, we might as well go all the way!

Wow, Indy, aren't you overreacting a little here? JR isn't saying don't call anything, and he's not saying the rules are all black and white. He's saying some of the rules are very well-defined and do not take judgement. You call or no-call those how they are written. Why is it common sense to make up a rule that lets you warn team A for doing what is perfectly legal? If you want to bring the mockery to an end, deal with team B, who ARE after all, the ones who are making a mockery. Warn team B, then call them for it if they do it again. That avoids the "mockery" thing, and obviates the need for the shaving kit. NBD. Sheez...

Indy, I don't want to get into any kind of a flame war with you, or anyone else over this. However, I do have the right to post my legitimate concerns,if I have some. Having someone recommending officials to do something that CANNOT be backed up in any way by the present rules is a legitimate concern, imo.

Don't take it personal if I disagree with you. It certainly isn't meant to be.

JR,

Sorry if it sounded like I was starting to flame. It truly wasn't meant to sound like that. I meant to be sarcastic and funny...so I apologize for anyone who may me taking it any differently.

Evidently, you and I (and at least Juulie) disagree here...as did my main partner and I initially. After discussing it at length...(and I did use the same analogy on him as I posted here--to which he thought was funny), we came to the resolution I posted earlier. And, I'll stick by it. I like it...and in my opinion, not only does it make good common sense, but it also is supported by the rulebook.

I simply can't accept that the intent of A's actions aren't promoting B's violation. Team A is gaining an advantage if an official ONLY penalizes team B. Again, this is after these coaches have publicly instructed each team to act as they are.

If I'm not making myself understood yet, I may never be understood!